Topic: Freedom Of Association? - page 3. (Read 11878 times)

Oh, I see you think it was a slight.

No, I just consider wild unsubstantiated claims the domain of children.
Don't you?

Hush child...the adults are talking.

Your posts have about as much focus as a toddler with ADHD.

Well I'm glad we had this chat.

/thread.

Classy.

Depends.  I assumed you were saying I am arguing more than you are. By the above definition I'm probably arguing just about as much as you (since it would seem that your words above are an argument).  I'm also doing a pretty large amount of explaining about my words and reasoning.  You, not so much.
I'd tend to think "twist" implies intent. So I need to know the actual definition you are using before I can twist words. Unless to you mentioning that your use of a word differs from mine implies "twisting".  Is the request to know what you mean by said word is also "twisting"?

You are potentially correct in one point.  When you say "colloquial" meaning "usage in familiar and informal conversation". Then yes, I think I do that at first. Like most people I figure.  What's the problem there?  I do appear to recognize that your usages are different than mine.   I also tend to ask for what your definitions are.  What's the problem with figuring out what you are talking about?

Who is "everybody else" in this sentence?  Didn't you just say that I was using terms in a colloquial sense.  Doesn't that mean that the majority of conversations would favor my usage?

You're appealing to something you can't know there.  Just sayin...

I think you're wrong.  I could give you a dozen examples easy from the above thread where I clarify something. I've also run a few of your short posts through some software I have for testing readability.  Yours tend to come out as less readable than mine.  

If you happen to be referencing my final use of the term "clarification" in my last post.  You would see that I wasn't saying that "I am clarifying" but that I was "asking for clarification" which I seem to be doing.

Also, perhaps it's different where you are but "conciseness" and "clarity" aren't necessarily the same.  One, where I am anyway means being brief or removing unnecessary detail. So unless you trivially define "unnecessary" then that doesn't imply "easily understood".   I figure that's why people use the phrase "clear and concise" noting the importance of both axes.

Perhaps you're just seeing that I tend to think the world is complex instead of simple.

Thankfully that may not mean so much.  


You get that I've shown almost zero interest in that. Right?  So isn't this like saying "Unless you eat a hundred live spiders.  The conversation is over."?
Look your many attempts to change the discussion from your poor logic are noted.  I know the drill.  You're trying to move the battle from a position of weakness to one of strength.

Huh.  In a few lines I sketched out law, it's purpose, the kinds of ways you can measure it's success and the fact that it's required to be complex.  I also tried to say how simplicity fits into the mix. Considering you begged all those questions here and in your back-patting thread.  I'm not so sure I deserve to be labeled 'shallow'.  Also while I admit I have trouble answering questions when you won't define your terms.  It was very easy to find questions that you can't answer about your own ideas.  Which shows some lack of thinking on your part.  Some might call that shallow.


Except the way I used it made some sense.

To the marginally informed:

Definitions:

Argumentative: Given to arguing; disputatious. Contentious.
Argue: To put forth reasons for or against; debate.
Colloquial: Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal.

The above is exactly what you do and are. You're twisting words colloquially to be argumentative due to the very side-effects of the language. Every word everybody else uses is a weasel word for you. You say I say one thing to just twist it around again because it suits your combative verbal loquacity. In fact, if I were to quote you, you'd probably argue with yourself not realizing it.

Clarification: To make clear or easier to understand; elucidate.

Clarification is exactly the opposite of what you do. If you had an ounce of capability in this sense you'd have dispensed with the response and gotten on with it. Of course, this is impossible for you because you're incapable of such conciseness.

As I'm most certain you can't help yourself by manipulating the meaning of the above commentary, and will answer with more diarrhea of the mouth, so even despite that, my request still stands, that being:

Define your version of the Laws of Men.

If you can't or refuse to do that, then there is nothing more to say betwixt us. Engaging in verbal intercourse with you is not satisfying. It's shallow meaninglessness.

As you so eloquently put it, "unless you're sleeping with me you don't get to say that."

They would be more believable if I wasn't (rather obviously) joking about these being real reviews.

Classy.  If had you put something in there that was say...a demonstrable quality of the person you're describing like I did.  It would have that "it's funny but true" quality.  Which I think is much more effective.
 
I'd say it's rather clearly in line with what Hume is talking about.  You said: "For you to know if I use non-standard terms (what the term is), is to imply you know what the standard should be. (what the term ought to be) ". Emphasis mine.

Seven people didn't understand a sentence of yours with a few of them even reading the prior message for context.  They seem to understand what an is/ought fallacy is.

Wait. What?  
How am I the "instructor" in this context?  It was your sentence.  The point was to let them read without me injecting my own biases.

Who's "we" in this sentence now?  You and the people who read your sentence?  Do you not understand your writing either?

Can you narrow that down a bit?  Does "Laws of man" mean something different than "laws".  Are we using your definition of law or what I assume is the colloquial usage? So for example if I make another example of a law like "knives more than 6 inches in length can't be carried..." will that be considered a law or not?

No I'm pretty sure I don't talk anything like that.


Tip: To me this sentence would mean that "argumentative argumentation" (whatever that means) would be "something of interest".  The subordinate clause is treated like an exception to the primary clause.  i.e. "You have nothing to offer other than money" means "You have only money to offer".

So if you mean nothing of interest to you.  Well that's only marginally in my control.  Actually, from where I sit I haven't really done much arguing.   More just asking for clarification.  I don't really call that arguing.

jgraham,

"In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is."

Your definition of is-ought is not the same as the author who wrote it. To wit, your english, your logic, and much of your reasoning is not in line with the norm/standard usage. This is evidenced by the fact you mentioned there were 6 or 7 people that didn't get it. Either you can't explain it, in which case it's plausible you suck as an instructor, or we're all ignorant and your the only one "in the know", or it's something else entirely that the majority of us can't put a finger on but you.

I'm merely asking you to opine about the moral and ethical issues which involve the Laws of man. That's it.

You talk a lot about something going somewhere going nowhere. It would appear you have nothing of interest to offer (assuming you were even doing that) other than argumentative argumentation.

Here's a real review:

"jgraham is a loudmouthed douche that tries to make up with posturing what he lacks in intelligence and he'll never convince me that stealing is justifiable and doesn't require restitution in kind" -bitcoin2cash

Have a nice day, statist clown.

These would be a little more believable if you had actual quotes.

What does that even mean?  Seriously.  I think you will probably assume that this lack of comprehension is some problem with me. So I showed this sentence to...now seven ...people and they can't figure it out either.  Some even read the prior exchange.  What am I assuming?  English grammar would tell me that the direct object is "is ought fallacy determination".  Is that the same thing as the "is-ought" fallacy you made earlier?   When you assumed that because you used the term Law in an obscure way that necessitated I know what the "true" definition of law should be?  Why am I assuming that?

Is this some obscure way of saying: "Can you give me a definition of law anyway?" (and perhaps implicitly "I don't really know what an is-ought fallacy is")


Again, I don't really know what you're asking for here.  It's not even clear what you mean by "observes in nature".   Doesn't everything you know come from some observation of your environment or are you stating that certain fundamental concepts of law are somehow intrinsic to people?


I agree that losing the life of people I care about for any reason would be a bummer but to me that would be both trivially true and not really a question of ethics or morality.
Also now you seem to want to talk about the "issues of law" instead of the "definition of law" and you are asserting (assuming? arguing?) that these things, whatever they are are moral and ethical.

Again I really don't know what you are talking about.  What's an "is/ought scenario" and what does it have to do with what's being talked about?  An is-ought fallacy is the assumption that a statement about an element's attribute necessitates it's correctness.  For example you assumed that because I knew that you used a non-standard (or obscure) definition for "law" I must know the way it ought to be defined.  This is untrue and crap logic.   Perhaps you are using my terms in yet another obscure way or you're implying that most of you here engage in crap logic?  If the later: QED. 

Protip: Using idioms or even parts of idioms in two different senses in the same discussion with no clarification probably hampers more than helps communication.

jgraham,

Assuming the is-ought fallacy determination of what Law is, would you try the moral/ethical attempt at what Law is?

After some thought it would seem that the moral Law cannot be derived from what one observes in nature (as in X is Y), or at least it cannot be described in such terms without referring to what one prefers (good, bad or indifferent). However, and notwithstanding that, would you try anyway?

Laws of man are concerns regarding moral and ethical issues i.e. whether one should kill or not, steal or not, and other what-not. Would you agree that were the world lawless, that arbitrarily (very broadly defined) losing your life, or those of your loved ones would at least be a "bit of a bummer"?

The mere fact you engage in conversation in the Politics & Society section of this forum you accept the fact that there will be a lot of is-ought scenarios. If you don't like that fallacy, you should try elsewhere.

Start there.

I guess the short answer is (in my best Cary Elwes voice) "Get used to disappointment."

I said that YOU are using terms in a non-standard way (as opposed to say what I think the modal definition used by some group like 'society' or English speakers is).  To think that means I know how the term "law" should be defined is, for one an is-ought fallacy.   This is a good example of what I mean that a lot of people here don't know how to reason a point.  Maybe that fools the locals where you are but it's to reason what late-night infomercials are to knowledge.  

Furthermore I don't even need a formal definition of a term to determine that you are using it differently from said group uses it.   In this particular case I just gave you an example which seemed to be acceptable by said group and you called it "not a law".  Ergo, you are defining the term differently than this group does.

You also realize that the statement was made in the larger context of justifying why I needed more precise definitions.   If you met someone who used the term "Cat" to mean either "Cat" or "Dog" you would probably find yourself asking them to define things more often than someone who didn't.

All that said, and while I doubt I have a well formed definition.  I'm warming to the idea of framing the argument the way I did earlier, with functions (or function like constructs) approximating a "true" function.   At least I think that puts forward a somewhat concrete outcome for laws and by virtue of that gives you the idea of the kinds of metrics one might construct to determine a system that is better or worse all while not making some of the oversimplifications which you appear to be making.  It can even include some ideas about "simplicity" - if you were following the sub-discussion about Bayesian inference and Ockhams Razor - however perhaps not exactly as you intend.

But like I said that's not a formal definition.


What exactly do you want me to show?  A formal definition?  Isn't that like saying "Show me something I illogically inferred you had!".  I confess threats like this are the absolute weirdest aspect to the culture of this place.  Bitcoin2cash does this too (to be fair it's possible he's reformed since I think he chastised someone in this thread the same way I chastised him) and it's bonkers.  To me, what you are saying is: "Tell me what I want to know or I'll willfully make myself more ignorant than I already am!".   Why on earth would I care?

...and yet that's what I was talking about.  How is this significantly different than asking me to take my own words out of context?

Ever thought you take yourself a little too seriously?  No?  How about a lot?  Truth is even if you don't find my response satisfactory your theatrics here are just that.

Then you should stop and just approach the argument like a reasonable person.
Ok now I think you're trying to incite mockery.  Who finds that intimidating?

I'd be interested in your standard of Law. You've referred to it in the past. I'd like to see the dissertation. You say I've used 'Law' terms in non-standard ways. Or is it non-standard terms describing 'Law'? For you to know if I use non-standard terms, is to imply you know what the standard should be.  Whatever you say or you think I said, I don't care. I want to see yours.

Show your hand. If you don't, I'll personally consider you bluffing. At this point I could care less what I've said thus far. Ignore that. Produce, or forever hold your tongue. I'm tired of the masturbatory word play.

Throw down.

Or any of the logical languages like loglan for that matter.


Usually? You mean like when I talk about what we should eat for dinner? Sure but that doesn't make the argument that just assuming some informal meaning here is sufficient. I'd counter that in most cases where there is some value on the outcome people do a fair bit of back and forth to determine the precise meaning.

Good example, this morning one person in my employ and a manager were discussing moving an application over to a different platform.  I'm a PM/Architect so when I walked through the discussion I was consulted.  I asked three questions:  Is the cost of conversion high? Does the cost increase over time? and Are there any significant benefits?  Turns out the cost was high, the cost did not increase and there were significant benefits.  I suppose I could have taken everyone at their word.  However, I didn't I asked what the benefits were.   Turns out they had nothing to do with the application.   So the employee assumed I meant "benefit" in the very general context.   So I told them that we shouldn't migrate the application.   The conversation went to a few other things.   Just as the manager was leaving the employee said "So I'm going to test migration" and the manager said "yeah, go ahead".   I stopped them both and asked the manager "Do you mean that we should test on the platform we decided not to migrate to?" Turns out he was talking about some other aspect that we had discussed and simply assumed that the workers question was in reference to that.

Also not to put too fine a point on it but you are using terms in completely non-standard ways (i.e. Law) so that doesn't help things.

I'd say that in loose terms  that's precisely what happened above.

However that's neither here nor there.  It's not what I did, nor what I advocate.
I assert this is why the back and forth is important.

Multiplicity of meaning is the problem with any "spoken" language. Mathematics resolves much of this of course, but I don't know of anybody who speaks mathematics or uses set theory on a regular basis in their everyday speech.

T'would be nice, but obviously just isn't the case. We all have to deal with drawing inferences from what is expressed either written, spoken, or gestured. Then we act. There aren't many people willing to play the role of logician. It takes way too much effort for the average person. It tends to take too much time. We assume things like words have specific meanings, and hope they don't deviate much from those. Not that it wouldn't help in some cases, but for the majority of conversation, most people seem to get the gist. That usually suffices.

It's when one expresses one way, and acts contrary to that expression (our interpretation thereof), is where we take issue. These are usually about broad topics involving a variety of scenarios. Notwithstanding, subsets of those conversations can be completely picked apart. I'd venture a guess that just about everybody could have every word, construction or combinations of words picked apart for any number of reasons. Why do that? Because you can?

What exactly does this accomplish? There are very few words in any dictionary that have "precise" definitions and meaning, as you say, unless you're reading something different than I am. And in context they can mean something entirely different. This doesn't even include things like satire, sarcasm or wittier elocution like paraprosdokians.

Sure every argument starts somewhere. However there's nothing stopping the argument from starting from a set of common and agreed upon premises.  Even when two people love each other very much....sorry wrong speech....sorry when two people have agreed upon premises (including what you're calling 'axioms') it's entirely common to require some definitions.

Here, for example it's unclear how I determine if one set of laws is "fewer" than another.   Clearly this is important, if it can be established that there is no useful way to count laws then the premise while assumed to be true - is useless (except perhaps as a rhetoric device).  So we throw it away.  From there it's also important to understand what is "preferable" here.   Do you only mean it in the trivial sense (i.e. preferable to you) or is there some more general sense you are appealing to.   Again if it's just preferable to you and you are appealing to no other value system.   Then again the axiom - even if assumed true - is useless (same caveat).  Once we have those two things, it's worth determining if the statement is falsifiable.   Just because you assume something to be true or believe that it can not be proven correct - it may still be falsified.    


No offense but you're not up to that even if you were willing.
This is another example of your shenanigans.   It's technically a false dichotomy.  You do it a fair bit, you make a "Do we have to do A or B" argument.  When clearly those aren't the only choices.  To wit, it's likely that your argument can be evaluated in more ways than either simply being assumed true or making a tedious proof.

Not necessarily true.  I'm pretty sure I could get you to a point where either I can destroy the utility of the statement or demonstrate it false outright.  Even if I can't that's still somewhere.

Actually that was just a counter-example to the "worthsmith" nonsense.  The idea being that a four year old is probably not a wordsmith.  You do seem to project something strange onto my words.

Dating or not... You're just too damn funny for words. Keep it up, I'm entertained.